PVC female adapter transition to mc conector

[liquidtite]

We have a mud box in a cinder block wall that will have a rec in it .
It is stubed up. With 1/2 PVC through the sill plate into the bay of the walls framed with 2x6,a.

mc is ran down the framing and transitions with a mc connector into a female PVC adapter .
inspecyor says cannot transition in wall going from mc connector to PVC female adapter .
Is he correct?

 

[ActionDave]

Not a big deal IMO. I have done similar, however, art. 330 and 352 both require fittings to be used according to their listing and I doubt either the FA or the MC fitting are listed to be used with each other so..... the inspector is correct. Try chatting him up a bit next time, maybe distract him with a cup of coffee and a pastry.

 

[iwire]

We have a mud box in a cinder block wall that will have a rec in it .
It is stubed up. With 1/2 PVC through the sill plate into the bay of the walls framed with 2x6,a.

mc is ran down the framing and transitions with a mc connector into a female PVC adapter .
inspecyor says cannot transition in wall going from mc connector to PVC female adapter .
Is he correct?

The biggest issue with that is it does not ground the MC armor. Now I know it is likely grounded on the other end but that would be difficult for the inspector to verify.

As AD said ... Not being used as listed etc.

 

[infinity]

We have a mud box in a cinder block wall that will have a rec in it .
It is stubed up. With 1/2 PVC through the sill plate into the bay of the walls framed with 2x6,a.

mc is ran down the framing and transitions with a mc connector into a female PVC adapter .
inspecyor says cannot transition in wall going from mc connector to PVC female adapter .
Is he correct?

Do he say what does in the wall has to do with it? If this transition were from one raceway to another say EMT to FMC then he might have an argument there.

 

[sandsnow]

I think his concern is 300.15. A box, conduit body etc shall be installed at every pull point. And boxes etc shall be accessible.

300.15(f) says you can use a fitting designed for purpose instead of a box and it has to be accessible. So the MC Conn screwed into the FA is not compliant. UL has stated that Conn threads are only evaluated with locknuts.

Myself, I don't enforce 300.15(f), but I do call people on the accessibility point

 

[infinity]

Doesn't a pull point apply to a raceway system? This is MC cable where access after installation is not required.

 

[sandsnow]

Doesn't a pull point apply to a raceway system? This is MC cable where access after installation is not required.

He has to pull the wires into the pvc, right?

 

[iwire]

He has to pull the wires into the pvc, right?

That is how I understand that section.

 

[infinity]

In my mind I see not much differently than this except using MC instead of NM cable.

 

[sandsnow]

In my mind I see not much differently than this except using MC instead of NM cable.

In the op, I believe the mc jacket was removed. In fact it would have to be compliant because mc has to terminate in a listed fitting. I'm not sure if same is true for nm. I will look up later.

I think the above photo illustrates using emt for protection, aside from the title of the slide.

 

[ActionDave]

In my mind I see not much differently than this except using MC instead of NM cable.

I don't think there is an equivalent of 334.30 in art. 330 and there is no requirement for NM to land in a listed fitting like MC.

 

[infinity]

So MC cannot transition to any raceway? Why do they make these fittings, are these not code complaint to use?

http://www.bptfittings.com/Home/ProductDetail?id=00781747944716

 

[ActionDave]

So MC cannot transition to any raceway? Why do they make these fittings, are these not code complaint to use?

It sure is. I don't doubt that it is listed for transitioning to another raceway. Respectfully, it is not a PVC fitting.

 

[ActionDave]

And there is no similar fitting required for NM.

 

[Smart $]

So MC cannot transition to any raceway? Why do they make these fittings, are these not code complaint to use?

http://www.bptfittings.com/Home/ProductDetail?id=00781747944716

Using this fitting is compliant for the transition, but it must remain accessible [300.15(F)].

 

[jap]

Using this fitting is compliant for the transition, but it must remain accessible [300.15(F)].

I was thinking the same thing if it were an actual flex connection where you terminated the flex and then pulled the wires through the flex,,,,,, but the wires aren't made to be pulled out of MC cable so what's the issue if the fitting was unaccessible or not?

Its not a splice.

Its not like you could pull the wires out of the jacket of the MC cable and replace them if you needed to, so whats the point of enforcing an issue with a fitting that makes no difference in the application?

JAP>

 

[jap]

I cant see the picture so I'm not sure I have the whole story.

 

[Smart $]

I was thinking the same thing if it were an actual flex connection where you terminated the flex and then pulled the wires through the flex,,,,,, but the wires aren't made to be pulled out of MC cable so what's the issue if the fitting was unaccessible or not?

Its not a splice.

Its not like you could pull the wires out of the jacket of the MC cable and replace them if you needed to, so whats the point of enforcing an issue with a fitting that makes no difference in the application?

JAP>

I cant see the picture so I'm not sure I have the whole story.

I'm not sure which picture you can't see. The one I referenced is an MC/flex to EMT fitting.

I'm not going to argue the accessible requirement. Pros and cons are rendered moot because it is required.

 

[jap]

I'm not sure which picture you can't see. The one I referenced is an MC/flex to EMT fitting.

I'm not going to argue the accessible requirement. Pros and cons are rendered moot because it is required.

I wouldn't argue it either cause I simply don't like the idea of a fitting like this inside the wall myself anyway.
I'd of stubbed the PVC all the way to an accessible area, put a box on top of that and pulled individual conductors through the pvc all the way to the receptacle , but that's just me.

 

[sandsnow]

In the op, I believe the mc jacket was removed. In fact it would have to be compliant because mc has to terminate in a listed fitting. I'm not sure if same is true for nm. I will look up later.

I think the above photo illustrates using emt for protection, aside from the title of the slide.

I didn't get the mc cable correct. 330.40 says ...fittings used to connect mc shall be listed. I thought it read ..... mc shall terminate in a listed fitting. By that wording it appears you could slide the mc with the jacket left on all the way through the conduit into the box, however you still have to protect the conductors from abrasion per 314.17. So fitting would have to be installed on the end of the cable. I don't think it is good way, but it appears to be compliant.

If there were an exception allowing a transition to be concealed where running a short distance to a floor box for example, that would be a good thing.

Whichever way is used, the conductors must THHN/THWN if the conduit is in a wet location per the definition in article 100. Some mc cable is THHN only.